Critical Pedagogy and Language Education: Hearing the Voices of Brazilian Teachers of English

Abstract

Based on an ethnographic research study involving Brazilian teachers from different educational contexts in the city of Salvador, Brazil, this paper aims to approach and discuss the dialogic relationship between critical pedagogy and language education, within the context of English as a global lingua franca. The main goal of the original work was to investigate how EFL teachers see themselves as language professionals in the contemporary world, how aware they are of the implications related to the condition of English as an international language or a global lingua franca, and to what extent they conceive teaching the language under a critical intercultural pedagogy. Data were generated through a questionnaire, class observation sessions, and video recordings of semi-structured group interviews in which issues like the globality of English, culture teaching, interculturality, and critical (language) pedagogy were approached and debated. Results have shown that participants are aware of the implications of the global status of English and that teaching the language in these current times cannot happen in a neutral and/or uncritical way. It was also revealed that teachers find difficult to systematize the teaching of culture in their EFL classes, as much as it is challenging for them to see themselves as critical intercultural professionals who can engage in critical pedagogy in their specific educational settings.

1. Introduction

The status of English as an international means of communication is both cause and consequence of the current process of globalization. According to Robertson [1,2], so far the world has experienced three “waves” of globalization which can be related to three phases of modern colonialism/imperialism. The first wave refers to regional trade explorations led by Spain and Portugal; the second to the industrialization period led by Great Britain; and, the third to the post-war world order dictated by the United States of America. It is in this post-war world that English has flourished and gained great momentum as the language of unprecedented power.

Never before has a language operated in a lingua franca role on such a global scale. Experiencing its fourth diaspora [3], English has continuously spread as the lingua franca of the so-called information age, reaching in the last decades an unimagined expansion. Along its trajectory through different lands and communities, the language has acquired so much power and prestige that an individual who has reached any formal educational background might feel at a great disadvantage if he/she does not speak English at least at a certain level of proficiency. However, as Bunce et al. [4] (p. 1) contend, “while English opens the doors of privilege and access for some, often the few, the way many countries organize education systems means that the English door is closed for the many” (italics in original).

In spite of all pride and possible benefits English-speaking societies can surely take from this massive expansion of English around the globe, it is always important to be attentive to the other side of the coin. Depending on the context where it operates, even in ex-British colonies, the proportion of people who have access to English might be surprisingly limited and undefined. Take India for instance, where statistics have never been very clear in terms of English proficiency, varying from “no more than one per cent estimates (to) almost one in three Indians” [5] (p. 197) in a population of over 1 billion people. Or Hong Kong, where, according to Eoyang, Bunce and Rapatahana [6], the local community has developed a rather schizophrenic attitude towards English, and in their view, “there is a definite desire for the language, rooted in instrumental and social motivations, but there also exists a kind of aloof indifference towards it” (p. 133).

With that picture in mind, it is then argued by authors like Bunce et al. [7] that in multilingual and multicultural contexts English frequently functions as voracious Hydra, the Greek nine-head monster whose new heads always grow when one is cut off [8], in its contact with local languages of lesser influence. As any language of great power, along its historical path, English has been used for imperialist purposes and to entrench injustice and exploitation. In many ways, as the authors remind us, this uncritical acceptance of English normally happens when English “is equated with modernity, progress and consumerism, whereas other languages are not” [4] (p. 3).

Blommaert and Rampton [9] (p. 21) affirm that “globalization has altered the face of social, cultural, and linguistic diversity in societies all over the world.” The most distinctive trace of the current stage of globalization is the electronic communication, especially due to the colossal expansion of its most prominent catalyst, the internet. Notably, the global computer network, which helped transform the world in a tremendous complex web of villages [10], has become “the major engine that is driving economic imperatives as well as cultural/linguistic identities” [1] (p. 131). It has also emerged as a unique source which connects millions of people from all parts of the world in a matter of seconds, most of the time, using English. As a consequence of this process, English has ended up being turned into a high-valued global commodity, especially in countries like Brazil, where teaching and learning the language is great business and a key element in social, professional, and economic mobility.

In view of such landscape, the world feels compelled to learn English as in several contexts it is taken as an important “tool for social advancement and a means to equalize opportunities [5] (p. 199–200). According to Seidlhofer [11] (p. 7), “for the first time in history, a language has reached truly global dimensions, across continents, domains, and social strata.” In the same vein, Fishman [12] (p. 26) contends that “whether we consider English a “killer language” or not, whether we regard its spread as benign globalization or linguistic imperialism, its expansive reach is undeniable, and for the time being, unstoppable.” Remarks like these may be surely questioned, but it is still reasonable to affirm that the global expansion of English has not yet showed significant signs of deceleration. So, instead of arguing in terms of the past why it has reached such a condition, we have to look ahead and deal with the implications of the phenomenon, especially those related to its pedagogy. Or, as Jenkins [13] (p. 4) would advise us, we had better find “ways in which we can make the language more cross-culturally democratic, under the “ownership” (in Widdowsonian terms) of all who use it for communication, regardless of who and where they are.”

Another factor that has decisively contributed to the global spread of English is the ELT industry. Far from being just a simple and neutral acronym, it sponsors and promotes a global multibillionaire business, highly competitive and normatively oriented by the adoption of a dominant Standard English (StE) conceived in the so-called hegemonic centers (US/UK), to be sold and taught to avid learners in all corners of the world.

Due to the great potential and development of ELT, a significant number of English teachers, native and non-native, are being formally educated, especially in the so-called periphery countries, where these professionals get their degrees not only at the tertiary level, but also in innumerous programs offered by hundreds of language centers spread around the globe. Although ELT’s remarkable expansion and structure seem to be founded in an environment of apparent neutrality, several authors like Crookes [14,15], Jordão and Marques [16], Kumaravadivelu [17,18], Phillipson [19,20,21], Pennycook [22,23,24], Rajagopalan [25,26,27], Siqueira [28,29], among others, are critical of that enterprise for its being basically oriented by a sense of domination. Phillipson [19], for example, has continually called our attention to the way the ELT industry has been contributing to the global diffusion of English in a neutral, acritical, and apolitical manner, which, according to him, has been conducted as a monumental effort to impose an imperialist agenda.

Apparently indifferent to these broader issues, English departments from many universities, courses and programs on FL teacher education and development, assume a refractory profile which makes very little or no room for critical reflection and discussion about the status of English as an international language (EIL) or English as a lingua franca (ELF), and its ideological, political, and pedagogical implications. In other words, despite the fact that the science of language has intensified a very prolific dialogue with areas like World Englishes, Critical (Language) Pedagogy, Cultural Studies, Education for Citizenship, Decolonial Studies, Mobility Studies, among others, there is still a prevalence of an educational tradition that privileges facts, methods, and doctrines to be absorbed and reproduced without question [14].

The debate for sure is not new, as alternative forms of pedagogical practice have always been pursued by different stakeholders based on the premise that the language classroom cannot be viewed as a closed box detached from the real world. This has meant moving away from prepackaged bits of knowledge, and conceiving language teaching practices from a critical perspective, thus engaging in a struggle to rethink and reframe methodologies, cracking open spaces through which there is constant dialogue with other co-related areas, and more overtly, promoting ways to “decolonize the foreign language journey” [30] (p. 13).

Based on the points presented above, reflecting voices of scholarship from the Global South [31], the objective of this article is to demonstrate in a synthetic way how the current process of teaching and learning English as a lingua franca can (and should) establish a broader and more beneficial dialogue with general education and other fields of knowledge which support and promote critical approaches to language pedagogy. The paper draws mainly on a doctorate research study with Brazilian teachers of English from different language education realities in Salvador, Brazil [32], which centered around four main themes: the status of English as an international language/lingua franca, the place of culture in the ELT classroom, interculturality, and critical pedagogy.

As for the organization of the article, apart from the Introduction, the first section discusses the concept of Critical Pedagogy (henceforth CP) while the second one approaches theoretically the dialogue between CP and language education, followed by the third one which puts in perspective CP, the global spread of English and English Language Teaching (ELT). The fourth section focuses on the description of the formal aspects of the study, including its methodological orientation, research questions, instruments for data generation, and the theoretical grounds on which the work was developed. A fifth section presents a brief analysis of part of the data followed by a general reflection on findings and results anchored in participants’ pre-selected quotes and insights. The last section, Final Remarks, stresses the importance of research works of this kind, especially in educational settings from the Global South, closing with a set of potential attitudes and engagements English teachers can adopt and embrace in order to incorporate CP into their daily pedagogical practices and their own lives.

2. Critical Pedagogy and Language Education

This section seeks to describe critical pedagogy (CP) in light of CP’s connection to language education. For Crookes [14], CP interests those teachers who value basic ideals such as equality, democracy, freedom, and solidarity, and who are looking for a way to bring those fully to bear in their professional practice as language educators. As Jeyaraj and Harland [33] (p. 344) highlight, “critical pedagogy is based on the premise education can make the world a better place.” For Shin [34], once we work with language education, especially ELT in the contemporary international context, be teachers or teacher educators, we are to engage ourselves in a practice which is to lead us into understanding and reinforcing the social, economic, political, and ideological implications of our profession. In other words, we need to challenge the predominant supposedly neutral orientation so dear to traditional language education and do critical pedagogy.

Contrary to what one might think, CP is not a theory or a method, but a way of life, it is a form of doing teaching and learning [35], it is teaching with an attitude. As Guilherme [36] (p. 17) contends, CP is “a pedagogy that includes teaching understood as part of the teaching/learning process viewed as dialectical and dialogical reproduction and production of knowledge.” In the same line of thought, Crookes [14] (p. 8) would tell us that “critical pedagogy is teaching for social justice, in ways that support the development of active, engaged citizens who will, as circumstances permit, critically inquire into why the lives of so many human beings, perhaps including their own, are materially, psychologically, socially, and spiritually inadequate.”

Once critical pedagogues see schools as cultural arenas where distinct social and ideological forms find themselves in constant conflict, what they shall be seeking is society transformation through education, including language education. Again, for Guilherme (2002), CP is a way of living that questions in depth our roles as teachers, students, citizens, human beings. Because of this, she argues that “it is impossible to give simple prescriptions about how to do CP” [36] (p. 19). Such feeling is corroborated by Wink [37] (p. 103) who goes beyond in this argument, affirming that he doubts we can teach someone to do CP: “We do not do critical pedagogy; we live it”, argues the author.

The basis of CP, as pointed out by Guilherme [36], shall not be attributed to a single theory. Despite the several ramifications both in Europe and the US, it was the work by Paulo Freire, the remarkable and well-known Brazilian educator, that has made the Latin American experience one of the most prominent and celebrated in the area of CP around the world. In this sense, Guilherme [36] (p. 23) postulates that the crucial role played by Freire’s thought in CP, always keeping in mind the Latin American context where he founded and developed his educational theory and practice, explains CP’s non-Eurocentric stance, “in spite of his adoption of some European and North American philosophical and educational theories.” It is for this reason, therefore, that several authors recognize Freire [38,39], especially because of his pioneering work in “critical literacy” with the poor adult populations of the Brazilian Northeast in the 1960, as “the founder of CP.”

CP’s main concern is power in the social and educational contexts, argues Santos [40] (p. 10). It surely “worries about “how” and “to which interests” knowledge and cultural formations are produced and distributed, acting as instruments of legitimation of hegemonic forms of power.” Therefore, under this perspective, CP seeks to foment citizens’ critical capacity, preparing them to resist, in a limited way or not, the effects of power. In the author’s view, with its emancipatory ideal, more than recognition of injustice, CP looks for “alternative ways of change through solidarity” [40] (p. 10).

In general education or educational theory, CP offers a rubric under which it is possible to find the most useful understandings for fundamental social, political, and cultural issues related to the area. Within this line of reasoning, Rajagopalan [41] asserts that the critical pedagogue, by nature, is someone who disturbs and disrupts the general status quo. In their task of stimulating the critical view of their learners, of fostering a critical posture, the critical educator “has always been and will always be a threat to consolidated powers” [41] (p. 111). Consequently, in Freire’s thought, one of the most powerful weapons available to the critical pedagogue is “conscientization” (conscientização), which, in his own words, it is “the most critical look of reality, which “unveils” it in order to get to know it and the other myths that cheat people and help maintain the reality of the dominant structure” [39] (p. 29). For the Brazilian educator, “a person who has reached conscientização has a different understanding of history and of his or her role in it.” That is, “he or she will refuse to become stagnant, but will move and mobilize to change the world.” [42] (p. 183). At all levels, education is to be mostly transformative rather than stubbornly reproductive and reductive. Based on this, it is contended in this paper that English Language Teaching (ELT) shall not remain immune to this.

3. Critical Pedagogy, the Global Spread of English and ELT

As well-known, English has reached the status of today’s global lingua franca not for the significant increase in the number of its native speakers, but, essentially, due to the exponential growth of the number of individuals the world over who are aware of the advantages of speaking the current language of international communication [43,44]. As mentioned earlier, because of such a demand, the ELT industry, as any transnational corporation, has been experiencing a never imagined development and expansion.

Phillipson [19,21,45], one of the most acid critics of this segment, on several occasions, has called attention to the power, the ideological grounds, as well as its consequences, in his view, still obscure. More recently, he has argued that “English has always been casually related to inequality and injustice” [21] (p. 40), and that the work of national agencies like the British Council, for instance, serves an unstated agenda whose objective is basically to strengthen the British ELT industry” [21] (p. 36), maintaining its global billion-pound position. In search of awareness development which would result in the adoption of a critical posture related to the global spread of English, especially by those directly involved with linguistic policies and education, the scholar states that,

English has acquired a narcotic power in many parts of the world, an addiction that has long-term consequences that are far from clear. As with the drugs trade, in its legal and illegal branches, there are major commercial interests involved in the global English language industry.

[45] (p. 16)

Rajagopalan [26] is another scholar who approaches the peculiar linguistic and cultural phenomenon he calls World English. According to him, the expansion of English is neither a neutral nor an apolitical process, and because of that, it is imperative a drastic revision of ELT pedagogical practices. In his view,

... ELT practices that have for long been in place need to be reviewed drastically with a view to addressing the new set of challenges being thrown at us by the phenomenon of WE. Up until now a good deal of our taken-for-granted ELT practices have been threatened with the prospect of being declared obsolete for the simple reason that they do not take into account some of the most significant characteristics of WE.

[26] (p. 114)

Although many researchers have been for some time already bringing about these issues with a certain frequency, it is plausible to affirm that a more intense dialogue between language education/teaching and critical pedagogy, its premises, and practical implications, is a fairly recent initiative. Crookes [15] (p. 1) sheds some light on the importance of this dialogue, arguing that “critical pedagogy in language teaching is a perspective in language curriculum theory and instructional practice that supports and advances teaching and the study of languages in ways that would promote social justice.” Aligned with that premise, Akbari [35] criticizes this persistent gap in language learning and teaching arguing that the great majority of the discussion so far has been limited to CP’s theoretical bases and intentions and very little has been done to really connect CP with the language classroom universe. Although Akbari’s point here is surely valid, it is important to point out that he fails to consider influential practical initiatives in the area involving materials on problem-posing in the ESL classroom by Wallerstein [46] and Auerbach and Wallerstein [47,48], and critical English for academic purposes by Benesch [49,50].

But the disparity exists, and as Ortega [51] emphasizes, it can be credited to a certain elitism perpetuated in the field, culminating with a myopic professional orientation characterized by the lack of sociopolitical awareness, and, therefore, “a dismissal of the political nature of second language teaching within the FL profession” (p. 248). For Ortega [51] (p. 248), it is way past time we engaged in a “politically responsible language education,” or as Crookes [14] (p. 5) defends, we need “a language teacher with energy, experience, and a vision of social change.”

In addition, experience has shown us that Applied Linguistics (AL) itself has been given very little importance to CP, its principles and arguments. For Kumaravadivelu [1], this sounds totally paradoxical. The author is of the opinion that once CP seeks to relate the “word with the world” (in Freire’s terms), language with life, and if AL is said to be a field which places great interest in “problems of the real world”, how to refrain the two areas from approximating and dialoguing? A possible explanation to the drawback reveals both the lack of access to knowledge related to Critical Applied Linguistics [24] and the absence of a greater professional articulation in terms of initial education and continuous development of FL teachers who, traditionally, are not used to attending (re)qualification programs theoretically oriented by critical-reflective perspectives. Awareness of such complexity will make us perceive a “need for activism towards S/FL teaching as a true profession with social goals and political responsibilities” [51] (p. 243).

In spite of these lacunae, it is possible to envision change. With the consolidation of the transdisciplinary character of AL in the last decades, we have begun to experience in language education the emergence of a solid dialogue with important fields of study like Critical (Language) Pedagogy, Intercultural Education, Decolonial Studies, Mobility Studies, among others. This tendency has helped us realize that it is vital to rethink and reconceptualize teaching practices traditionally oriented by methodological principles and processes imported from the so-called dominant centers of knowledge and solely designed for communication. As Ortega [51] (p. 249) points out, “hegemonic beliefs and attitudes in FL education are crucially related to nested notions of nativeness and standardness.” In many ways, these deep-rooted practices need to be challenged, including those which take as reference only the cultural aspects and values of dominant TL communities, disregarding any political or ideological concern that should support the FL teaching profession, especially today when issues of mobility and superdiversity are key aspects to be considered in language education [52]. Within this background of superdiversity [53], perspectives that take into account “the fluidities and complexities of diversity in the age of heightened mobility and digital communication” [54] (p. 49) are to emerge and develop at a fast pace.

As for English, today a transnational language, the issue holds great relevance, and, although still in a small scale, it starts to attract the attention of the regular practitioner. Whether they realize or not, English teachers occupy a central position in the most crucial educational, cultural, and political themes of these contemporary times. Once we conceive language education in broader social, cultural, and political terms, keeping in mind that ELT is far from being an ideologically neutral enterprise, English classrooms can naturally serve as safe spaces for teachers and students to work under a CP perspective, empower themselves, and relate their practices to what happens in the world outside. In other words, educators are to privilege the critical intercultural speaker of English, supporting the development of active, engaged citizens who will be able to participate more critically in the innumerous transcultural interactions that take place every single day in communities using English as a lingua franca. As Crookes [14] (p. 8) asserts, “professionals within the project of critical pedagogy focus on … matters which, to a large extent, make human beings what they are.”

The world’s sociolinguistic landscape where English currently functions as a lingua franca comprises a high degree of linguistic and cultural diversity. Due to this fact, different aspects inherent to the phenomenon have surely become attractive and important subjects of investigation by scholars from all over the world in many interrelated fields. Pedagogical implications of ELF, for instance, include key areas like the nature of the language syllabus, teaching materials, approaches and methods, language assessment and, ultimately, the knowledge base of language teachers [55] It is within this “knowledge base of teachers” that the study referred to in this paper inserts itself, and that is what it will be approached in the next section.

4. For a Critical Intercultural Pedagogy of ELF: A Research Study

As previously mentioned, the work reported in this article refers to a research study which involved fifteen Brazilian teachers of English working in different educational settings (higher education, secondary schools—public and private—and English language institutes) in the city of Salvador, Brazil. For a substantial period of time, ELT researchers seemed to have depicted some reluctance in investigating and writing about the English teacher/educator, either native or non-native. A major focus on learner-centeredness, especially during the 1970s and 1980s might have led to the assumption that teachers should keep a low profile in the process of language teaching and learning. As a consequence of such a practice, research studies which concentrated on the teacher were pushed from a central to a peripheral position. In other words, much has been written about the learner, being the teacher left aside, and in this specific area, kept in a secondary position.

The research study presented here takes an opposite direction. The decision to investigate this topic was based on the need to understand the implications of teaching a powerful imperial international language like English, putting emphasis on how a critical perspective could orient the current ELT practice in expanding circle countries like Brazil. It also sought to question historically consolidated concepts (interlingua, fossilization, NS model dominance, etc.) that, to a certain extent, have proven anachronistic in light of the new world order where English is used a lingua franca and, most of the time, operates in multilingual and multicultural contexts, where it can be just one more language out of many functioning together. The main motivation then was to investigate and understand how local teachers of English from diverse local contexts in a big city in Brazil would see themselves professionally, how they would behave in this new scenario of teaching English as a global lingua franca, and which would be the challenges to be faced and dealt with.

The work fits itself in the field of Applied Linguistics, and was conceived and conducted under a qualitative research paradigm, and it is of an interpretative nature. Six research questions oriented the original study:

• How does the teacher see their position and conducts their practice in the context of English as an international language (ELI) in Salvador, Brazil?
• Does the setting where the teacher works (university, regular school, language institute), with their curricular objectives and idiosyncrasies, determine the adoption of different postures on the part of teacher in their daily classroom practice?
• Does the teacher understand their ELT practice as a political and ideological act?
• Does the teacher recognize the particularities and methodological implications of teaching a global language?
• What would the most appropriate EIL teacher profile be in such a context?
• What is(are) the most adequate pedagogy(ies) to EIL teaching in Salvador, Brazil, and what challenges would the adoption of this(these) pedagogy(ies) represent to the contemporary teacher?

The theoretical construct was based on four main pillars: (1) the context of English as an international language or lingua franca and the pedagogical implications to each setting; (2) the language and culture relationship and its relevance in the process of teaching English as a global/international lingua franca; (3) the teacher’s intercultural competence, and (4) the adoption of a critical ELT pedagogy aiming at a sociopolitical action of an ideological, reflective, and transformative nature.

As for participants, fifteen teachers were selected based on personal contact. The rationale for selection was to include teachers from the most common ELT contexts in the city of Salvador, Brazil, aiming also at covering a potentially varied professional experience. Of the 15 teachers, 9 were female and 6 male. Ages ranged 25 to 60 years old, and in terms of years of experience, it ranged from 4 years the least experienced to 34 years of classroom teaching the most experienced. 14 of them had an undergraduate degree in languages and 1 in Social Sciences. In terms of post-graduation degrees, only 6 of them had finished short-term courses, known in Brazil as “specialization courses.” No one of them had MA or PhD degrees at the time.

Data were generated through three different instruments: (a) individual questionnaire, (b) ethnographic observations of two classes per teacher, and (c) two video-recorded collective semi-structured interviews in the form of focus groups. As stated previously, the group of participants comprised five teachers from the tertiary level (university English programs), five from secondary public and private school systems, and five from private English language institutes. The individual questionnaire (see Appendix A) comprised 35 questions, which basically covered the issues related to the main pillars of the study. All questions were open and the amount of data generated was very significant. All participants fully responded the questions providing very rich insights to the investigation. As for the semi-structured interviews (focus group), they centered around the four pillars, the teaching of English as an international language, the place of culture in the ELT classroom, teacher’s intercultural competence, and critical pedagogy. We had two encounters of 2 h each and they were video recorded. My role was to moderate the discussion and make notes of points that I found relevant to be used during the analysis.

Concerning the third instrument, classroom observations, the data generated come from 30 visits to classes (2 per participant teacher) where the role of the researcher was of a non-participant observer. Ethnographic notes were carefully registered (see sample in Appendix B) and further analyzed, keeping in mind the possible regularities and issues related to the study’s four pillars. The application of questionnaire, focus group encounters, and classroom visits all occurred during the second semester of 2006 and first semester of 2007. Once yielded, the data were treated separately, according to each instrument, and in a latter phase, there was a triangulation of responses in such a way that the issues raised could be interpreted through regularities and convergences, but also divergences and contradictions, especially concerning the more subjective matters. Among a great number of aspects, the whole analysis pointed to some routes of redefinitions concerning the reality of the teachers who participated in the study. Through the answers to the questionnaires, the discussions in the focus groups, and the classroom observations, it was possible to conceive interesting elaborations, and, in parallel, raise a few problematizations related to each of the pillars that guided the academic work. For the purpose of the paper, the findings presented and generally discussed in the next section are just a small sample of insights from the overall investigation, supported by participants’ quotes (translated into English from Brazilian Portuguese), placed under each of the main theoretical pillars.

5. The Voice of Brazilian Teachers: Discussion and Problematizations

As previously mentioned, the data analysis of the study was oriented towards each of the four theoretical pillars, revealing discourses, postures, and attitudes that can surely be used to compare ELT realities in similar settings around the world. For the first theoretical pillar, the context of English as an international language/lingua franca, it was possible to see from the answers and discussions that, along with the expected traditional competences such as solid fluency in the target language, linguistic and methodological knowledge, sociability, creativity, flexibility, among others, several new competences were added to the profile of the contemporary teacher, as we can see from these quotes taken from the questionnaire applied^: “Linguistic knowledge, critical awareness, openness to continue learning, enjoy working with people” (T2); “Get to know well the language, its history, and its people’s culture” (T15); “Overall knowledge of language teaching tendencies and methodologies” (T14).

In terms of potential new competences, teachers have mentioned familiarity with information technology, sharp critical sense, respect for diversity, openness to (un)(re)learn, constant search for (re)qualification, intercultural sensibility, sociolinguistic view, ample awareness of new ELT trends, readiness to make mistakes and capacity to reflect on their own practice. In many ways, this has demonstrated a high level of maturity in relation to recent demands which have been imposed on these professionals, as we can see from a couple of answers below also taken from the questionnaire applied: “Knowledge of diverse cultures, different Englishes, ability with modern technological resources” (T13), “Fluency, cultural and sociolinguistic awareness” (P4), “Intercultural competence, knowledge of cultural richness of the people(s) represented by that language” (T8).

It was also possible to verify that the difference between teaching a foreign language (FL) and a lingua franca (LF) or an international language (IL), along with the political and pedagogical implications, was something already internalized by the informants, and relatively consolidated among them. However, the data have shown that ELF/ELI-aware teaching proposals and initiatives are still very diffuse, as we can infer from some of the answers: “Teaching English under an international perspective is something relatively new to me, so I think I do need to experience it as much as possible now” (T10), “I think I need to study this more profoundly and apply that knowledge in my classroom” (T7), or “I am aware of these issues, so I’m trying hard to be update, to study, practice, as I think there’s always room for improvement” (T5).

The analysis has shown that these teachers do conceive the English class as a democratic space for discussion and reflection on what happens in the world outside, but they still seem to be disturbed by the dilemma of either putting into practice those peculiarities which go against ELT traditional procedures, or simply give in to the common resistance shown by learners, colleagues, and even superior staff like coordinators and administrators. From the responses, it was possible to assume that their superiors do not seem to be much interested in these issues and discussions, as these are usually taken as “too revolutionary” (T2), “utopic” (T7), “fictitious” (T10), “disturbing” (T12). Because of that, informants would report in the focus group that practitioners either ignore the topics or, voluntarily, opt for being loyal to the historical discourse which does not propose the development of the learner’s ability to speak, listen, read, and write in order to produce counter-discourses, refute, debate, question, etc. In other words, they would reinforce the premise that very little is done to deviate from the “empty blah, blah, blah of the communicative class” [22] (p. 301).

Concerning the second theme of the study, culture teaching in the ELF/EIL context, although informants had brought up interesting assumptions on the topic and placed themselves in favor of a systematic teaching of language and culture, or even language as culture, contradictions came up. As Liddicoat and Scarino [56] (p. 23) assert, “culture is a framework in which the individual achieves his/her sense of identity based on the way a cultural group understands the choices made by members.” The language classroom, as we know, is a cultural space par excellence where different cultures meet, interact, and have the great potential to enrich one another. The cultural dimension to language, of course, has always been present in language pedagogy, even if it is not always explicit [57].

During discussions in the focus groups, several teachers stated categorically that despite recognizing the intimate relationship between language and culture, for them it would be extremely difficult to teach this aspect overtly in the EFL class if the teacher never had any living experience in a native country or if there was never specific training for such a task to be carried out on a daily basis: “Culture teaching is still underexplored in the ELT class; we need to do that more systematically” (T14); “Not much about culture; the classes are generally restricted to linguistic content” (T4); “Cultural aspects are overshadowed, often discussed superficially” (T5); “I think we can teach a language without approaching cultural elements related to its speakers” (T10).

A deeper analysis into the matter has shown that a better understanding of what it means to teach a transnational deterritorialized language is still a crucial point to be addressed, as there is plenty of room for the encouragement of intercultural reflections among learners [58]. In general terms, when we talk about culture and ELF/EIL teaching, what really matters is not to discuss the essential character of this element in the pedagogical process or when to approach it. The challenge for the practitioner is to find out “how” to really take culture as something intrinsic, inherent to the plural linguistic repertoire they are teaching and, in a proactive way, make good use of it. Besides that, it is crucial to critically analyze the cultural content of textbooks which tends to present stereotypical cultural aspects of certain communities as packages of static information emulating and/or reinforcing the values of the target culture(s) under the label “one size fits all,” thus promoting the exclusion of the local [59]. As we all know, once a language becomes international it gets free from the custody of nations and cultures [60,61]. An ELF-aware classroom is surely not to neglect such a fact.

As for the issue of intercultural competence, the ability to interact with others, to accept other perspectives and perceptions of the world [62], and that teachers need to develop in order to foster it in their students, the study has shown that participants are aware of the need to work under such a perspective, although several of them demonstrated some insecurity and, to a certain extent, a surprising ignorance towards what it means to teach English assuming the role of an intercultural teacher, as we can see from the quotes below taken from the questionnaire and the focus group sessions: “It is something relatively new to me; I need to incorporate this into my practice more often” (T10); “I’m aware that I need to assume such posture in my classes, promote interculturality, but I know that most of the time I restrict my practice to purely pedagogical and pragmatic objectives” (T13); “We don’t know much about cultural aspects; we don’t live in these places; we are not prepared to deal with such issues” (T2); “Many teachers are discriminated against because they have never lived in the US; does this sole experience make you interculturally-competent? I don’t know” (T9).

Within this whole discussion, several teachers pointed out that in almost all contexts the regular FL student does not seem to care for intercultural issues or show any motivation towards the theme. Potentially influenced by such remarks, the data retrieved especially in class observations, showed that informants, in many ways, are still distant from an overall comprehension of what an interculturally-competent teacher would be or do. However, it was possible to observe that they are open to learn how to conduct their daily classroom practice employing specific methodologies and activities which, in some way, would substantiate an interculturally-sensitive pedagogy of English, a pedagogy oriented by what interculturality indeed fosters, “the symmetric and horizontal relations between two or more cultures aiming at mutually enriching one another thus contributing to greater human plenitude” [63] (p. 33).

Among other things, this pedagogy is to respect and privilege local learning culture(s) and learners’ needs. A productive way to bring to foment such a competence in the regular EFL teacher is made clear by Sifakis [64] (p. 256), for whom we could begin by raising pre-service and in-service teachers’ awareness of the communication value of ELF-related accommodation skills, with the aim of empowering themselves and their NNS learners as valid intercultural communicators, as opposed to maintaining a perspective that views EFL learners as deficient users of a language that is wholly “owned” by its native speakers. The voices of teachers in the study have revealed that investment in that area is still to be fully explored and developed in English language teacher education courses and programs.

For the last theoretical pillar, a critical pedagogy of ELF/EIL and the role of the teacher, the study has signaled that the participants seem to be more critical in theory than in practice. Their conceptions and beliefs concerning the issue manifest more clearly in the discourse, in the open discussions, during the occasions in which they voice consistent opinions about the importance of the contemporary English teacher, native or non-native, incorporate in his/her daily practice principles and expectations of a transformative language pedagogy, concerned with the human being and the environment where he/she lives. In other words, a pedagogy distanced from the conception of “banking education”, heavily criticized by Freire [38] in general education, and that, unfortunately, still predominates in most EFL classes around the world. The quotes which follow illustrate this position: “With this whole discussion on critical (language) pedagogy, I’m trying to deconstruct the sort of artificial teaching practice I’m used to; we need to work with the potential we have to bring real life into the classroom” (T13); “I see myself as a mediator in this process of inserting my students in the world through the access to English; they need to be aware that once they know this tool called English they can claim what is theirs, they can place themselves discursively and speak to people from an egalitarian position” (T9); “I see myself as a subject, actively influencing my students as much as they influence me to face social conflicts that come to us all the time; this is the great challenge when working under such a perspective” (T4).

Under the same vein, it was also possible to verify that the fifteen respondents, apart from the context where they work and their learners’ specific objectives, concerning their assumptions, beliefs, and theoretical references, are (though slowly) becoming aware of the central position they occupy in the pedagogy of English as a global lingua franca, and of the pressing revisions and changes in posture that the process has been demanding. However, although they might have incorporated a few particularities which would differentiate them positively and competitively from other practitioners, such as the relative comprehension of the implications of teaching a global language and their status of “(inter)(trans)cultural brokers”, in the terms of Lima and Roepcke [65], the teaching of English in the contexts investigated still reflects very little of these perceptions and conceptions, especially those which can potentially contribute to the adoption of a critical intercultural pedagogy of English as a global lingua franca.

In reality, despite some advance, the study has revealed that local ELT classrooms, including those which count on well-intentioned teachers, fully aware of an ELF/EIL pedagogy as an eminently political enterprise, still reproduce the traditional scenario globally conceived and designed for the incorporation and development of methodologies that normally ignore the local learning culture(s) and learners’ specific needs and objectives. In other words, traditional and consolidated EFL tenets, even those considered anachronistic for today’s global reality such as the power still assigned to the dominant native speaker model or to English standard dialects, stand strong and are to be deconstructed and possibly reframed more slowly than expected.

As we already know, much has been said about the fact the CP is a very positive and inspiring initiative to be considered for language education, despite its detractors who argue that it is still highly theoretical. However, it is nothing new a concern by several scholars engaged in critical language teaching (and critical ELT), who have been insistently calling attention to this, and indeed devising work on the practicalities of CP in the area of linguistic education [14,66]. As Kanpol [14,67] (p. 12) would point out years ago, “something must be done about making critical pedagogy’s ideas at least pragmatically accessible.” And, again, as Crookes [14] (p. xiii) would remind us, “English is the most powerful language and the language most deeply involved in international lineages of power and privilege.” It is exactly because of this and other important factors, that Critical Pedagogy is to play a crucial role in ELT, contributing to make teachers, learners, teacher educators and all stakeholders involved in language education aware of the fact that what encompasses this entire educational process goes beyond the mere acquisition of a global cultural capital, but, in many ways, is to “take seriously our hopes for improvement in the direction of goals such as liberty, equality and justice” [14] (p. 1). In a broader sense, the study with these Brazilian teachers has shown that despite the very consolidated and almost untouchable status of traditional ELT orientations, CP is not seen as an intruder in the English language classroom. On the contrary, their reactions to the theme have revealed very positive attitudes towards incorporating CP and its premises into their class plans and class developments.

Although not addressed overtly in the paper, the answers to the research questions have revealed that the English teachers who participated in the study seem to be more critical in theory than in practice. They commonly engage in reflection, but this is turned into little action. They are totally in favor of enforcing a relationship between critical pedagogy and FL teaching, but feel they lack the theoretical background, and that they are (still) underqualified to carry out their practice under such a perspective.

The informants are aware of the fact that teaching the current global lingua franca cannot take place in a neutral or uncritical way. They assure it is difficult to systematize the teaching of culture as much as it is to engage themselves in a daily practice based on principles of critical pedagogy. They also believe it is not a simple thing to see themselves as critical intercultural professionals. Although there are always opportunities in the classroom to approach issues which could raise and promote the development of students’ intercultural competence, they seem not to feel empowered enough to deviate from the lesson plans and move away from the expected linguistic content to be covered.

It was also possible to affirm from the findings of the study that the most adequate ELF/EIL pedagogy in contexts like Brazil should be one that recognizes and seeks to unveil in the ELT class the complexities inherent to the current condition of English as a lingua franca, placing great emphasis on the language’s intercultural use and other features inherent to multilingual and multicultural zones of contact. This, for sure, as we see it today, includes preparing students to use ELF along with other languages in situations where translingual practices or translanguaging are common [7,68]. Besides that, as previously pointed out, such a pedagogy shall be aligned with the specific objectives of each local program, firmly drawing on tenets that can critically challenge certain methodological canons which seem to continue being untouchable throughout ELT history.

An ELF/EIL pedagogy is to assume its mixed and hybrid condition, its local character, counting on well-formed educators and constantly (re)qualified by linguistic education programs founded in critical and transformative approaches [69]. These programs, besides contributing to improving and refining teachers’ linguistic knowledge, can also help them become better qualified professionals. Such initiatives, for sure, are to empower teachers and make them aware of their fundamental political role in the process of combating homogenous and homogenizing thoughts and behaviors and in the construction of discourses that will surely lead their students into exercising their local/global citizenship through the current global lingua franca. In other words, a pedagogy capable of leading local English teachers into engaging in a constant search for local solutions to the challenges contemporary linguistic education has intensively brought to them.

As any academic work of this nature, it is important to mention that it surely has several limitations. For instance, at the time the study was conceived and carried out, there were very few similar research works connecting CP with language education to draw on. Brazil is the land of Paulo Freire, and as such, it makes great sense to struggle to see CP and its fundamental orientations in constant dialogue with language education, so that we can create a very solid and robust body of knowledge that especially depicts experiences involving critical and decolonial educational work from the Global South. The work this paper was based on has sought to investigate how and to what extent it is possible to teach English today under a critical intercultural pedagogy. Despite expected gaps and failures, results and developments have pointed to a very rich reflection showing that the way is already paved. We just need to continue walking.

6. Conclusions

The data from the research study synthesized in this paper have shown that, among other things, the ELT profession in these post-modern times has become a much more complex enterprise that it was in the past when English was taught around the globe basically as a foreign language that belonged to native speakers of two dominant cultures, UK and US. English (was) spread around the world, and whether we have clearly realized or not, the phenomenon has been offering unique opportunities for those working in the field to question and rethink innumerous imposed and consolidated ELT assumptions, beliefs, values, pedagogies, etc. Along with this, this status of global lingua franca has naturally been granting stakeholders with the possibility to critically reconstruct these ELT orientations based on local realities and imbued in a local flavor.

The more English travels around the world the more demands and specificities will be posed to ELT practices. And more adequate pedagogies to local realities will be pursued and designed. Once the reflection on the adoption of a critical intercultural pedagogy of ELF is made clear, it is important to mention that to reach such a goal, classroom routine is to embrace sensitivity to diversity, center around critical initiatives of different natures, and enforce the creation and use of student-teacher negotiated materials whose ultimate outcome is social action. In addition, thinking exactly of future actions and inspired by the voices of the Brazilian teachers who took part of the investigation, we can postulate that for English to be taught under a critical intercultural pedagogy perspective in these contemporary times, it would be crucial to count on ELT professionals who, among several other aspects, engage themselves in:

-

approximating linguistic education to general education, therefore to the socio-political issues intrinsically related to the process of educating people;

-

recognizing and conducting ELT as an eminently political activity;

-

conceiving language as an essential social and ideological instrument and not as a package of grammatical rules to be memorized;

-

rejecting methodologies which privilege practices oriented towards a linguistic education of a “banking” nature, in a Freirean sense;

-

seeking concept re-signification, re-evaluation of ELT paradigms, questioning methods and procedures solely based on models oriented towards standardness and nativeness;

-

enrolling with a certain frequency in development rather than training programs, trying to expand knowledge that goes beyond methodological tools;

-

analyzing critically the context they are inserted in, taking into consideration the highly sensitive nature of the role of English in the world today;

-

investing in the development of their critical intercultural competence in order to be able to foment similar ability in their learners;

-

comprehending the fact the English today is what with its speakers, native and non-native, do with it;

-

preparing the learner to become an international multilingual user of English who is able to operate both at global and local levels; an intercultural/transcultural speaker of the language;

-

defending and supporting initiatives of democratization of the access to English;

-

combating deep-rooted myths, canons, prejudice, xenophobia, other forms of oppressions, including patriarchy, imperialisms of all types, especially those related to language;

-

helping students to produce, not reproduce, knowledge and discourse; seeing ELT through a SOL perspective as in TESOL [70];

-

conceiving and implementing interculturally-sensitive curricula, syllabi, and methodologies which truly reflect learners’ realities and attend to their specific goals;

-

developing and/or implementing critical approaches which contribute to learners’ self-perception as human beings and critical citizens;

-

defending the access to foreign languages, especially a powerful language like English nowadays, as a human right not as a privilege of those few who can afford “to buy” it.

In sum, English is here, on the streets, on the media, frantically navigating on the inforoads of the internet, bombarding our eyes, our ears, our lives. English is many, never one. As said repeatedly, English can serve to entrench injustice and exploitation, but it can also be used to fight against such practices. English can be used for imperialist purposes but also to resist and counteract imperialism. English can be a “healer” or a “killer” language [71]. It surely depends on what we do with the language and who we are. In the current circumstances, ignoring the global language is a virtually inconceivable act. Not because we would like or are overeager to speak fluently the language of the United States or Britain, but because we want to speak with the United States, Britain, and the entire world at the same level of equality. People all over the world wish to dominate this language, acquire it, and use it in their favor, and their own way. It is because of such scenario that many changes are called upon, especially when it comes to the noble and highly complex task of those who, in all corners of the planet, will set their hearts and minds to critically teach the global lingua franca of our current times. That is, alluding again to the figure of the Hydra, it is not a matter of having to “kill” it, but getting fully equipped to confront and tame it.